This came up in conversation with an Antiochian friend. If the churches positions are basically the same, and the OOs accept the idea or philosophy behind Chalcedon but object to the wording, why do the OO churches not just accept the council? I did not know how to reply.

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

If the churches positions are basically the same, and the OOs accept the idea or philosophy behind Chalcedon but object to the wording, why do the OO churches not just accept the council?

If the churches positions are basically the same, and the EO accept the idea or philosophy behind St. Cyril's one incarnate nature of God the Word, but object to the wording, why don't the EO just deny Chalcedon.

See, this works both ways.

Besides, I doubt whether the OO accept the 'idea' of Chalcedon. Chalcedon had the chance to accept a more conciliatory 'from to natures' but they went with the more controversial 'in two natures' because they were forced by the emperor and because they didn't really like Pope Dioscorus.

How much does our differing view of the Council of Chalcedon and the miaphysite vs. dophysite nature of Christ matter?

This was written by a favorite priest of mine who blessed me last Epiphany, it should clear up a lot of the Oriental perspective because as much as we all wish it didn't matter, it really and fundamentally does. However studying Christology is not an obstacle, it is a powerfully moving opportunity to explore Jesus Christ and our relationship with who He is.

lets see if i can do it in less than 200 words...ok, in 451AD the roman emperor wanted more power. he was trying hard to hold onto influence in egypt, realising it had been very powerful for many centuries and may break away. there were lots of other agendas but i can't remember them now.there were several Christians in powerful state positions (on both sides) who were tempted to compromise on their faith to get favour from the state.the churches had a few heresies to sort out, and wanted to get together to agree on stuff.the various agendas clashed a bit, most people were not 100% Godly and people decided to disagree.in 1990AD, many of them realised they had made a mistake and decided they were all truly orthodox.ref: http://orthodoxunity.org/(website by an orthodox priest who is very educated in these matters)1.5 millenia of hate and mistrust takes some sorting out and we are working on it.have a look at the discussions on the 2 patriarchs called theodore 2nd for more tips on how we can love each other and work towards unity.

Chalcedon had the chance to accept a more conciliatory 'from to natures' but they went with the more controversial 'in two natures' because they were forced by the emperor and because they didn't really like Pope Dioscorus.

If the churches positions are basically the same, and the OOs accept the idea or philosophy behind Chalcedon but object to the wording, why do the OO churches not just accept the council?

If the churches positions are basically the same, and the EO accept the idea or philosophy behind St. Cyril's one incarnate nature of God the Word, but object to the wording, why don't the EO just deny Chalcedon.

See, this works both ways.

I find this logic a little faulty. It's different thing thing to say "I don't have reason to object X so I accept it" and "I don't have have reason to object X so I discard Y in favor of X".

Chalcedon had the chance to accept a more conciliatory 'from to natures' but they went with the more controversial 'in two natures' because they were forced by the emperor and because they didn't really like Pope Dioscorus.

Or because it's more accurate.

2. When all had taken their seats in front of the rails of the holysanctuary, the most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Please makeknown to us what you have determined about the faith.’

3. Asclepiades deacon of the great church of Constantinople read outthe definition, which it was decided not to include in these minutes.

4. After the reading, while some raised objections, John the mostdevout bishop of Germanicia, {coming across to the centre,} said: ‘Thedefinition is not a good one and needs to be made precise.’

[...]

6. All the most devout bishops apart from the Romans and some of theOrientals exclaimed: ‘The definition satisfies us all. This is the faith of thefathers. Whoever holds a view contrary to this is a heretic. If anyone holds adifferent view, let him be anathema. Drive out the Nestorians. This definitionsatisfies everyone. Let those who do not anathematize Nestorius leave thecouncil.’

10. The most glorious officials said: ‘If it seems good, let us – taking sixof the most devout Oriental bishops, three from the diocese of Asiana, threefrom Pontica, three from Illyricum, and three from Thrace, accompanied bythe most holy Archbishop Anatolius and the most devout men from Rome –retire together into the oratory of the holy martyrium. When they haveexamined everything in order, their recommendations concerning the holyfaith will be reported to you.’

11. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘The definition has satisfiedeveryone. [Report] our statements to the emperor. This is the definition ofthe orthodox.’

13. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus saidthat the reason for Flavian’s deposition was that he said there are twonatures but the definition has “from two natures”.’

14. Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said: ‘Itwas not because of the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposedbecause he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and wassummoned a third time and did not come.

15. The most glorious officials said: ‘Do you accept the letter ofArchbishop Leo?’

16. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Yes, we have accepted andsigned it.’

17. The most glorious officials said: ‘Then its contents must be insertedin the definition.’

18. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Another definition must notbe produced. Nothing is lacking in the definition.’

19. Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘Anotherdefinition must not be produced.’

[...]

21. The most glorious officials said: ‘Your acclamations will bereported to our most divine and pious master.’

22. Our most divine and pious master [=Emperor Marcian] has issued the following commands.Either, in accordance with the decision of the most magnificent and gloriousofficials, six of the most devout bishops of the diocese of the Orient, threefrom Pontica, three from Asiana, three from Thrace, and three fromIllyricum, in the company of the most holy Archbishop Anatolius and themost devout men from Rome, are to go into the oratory of the most holymartyrium and produce a correct and unimpeachable definition of the faithso as to please everyone and leave not a single doubt. Or, if you do notapprove this, each one of you is to make his faith known through hismetropolitan so as likewise to leave no doubt or disagreement. If yourholinesses do not want even this, you are to know that the council will haveto meet in the western parts, since your religiousness is unwilling to issuehere an unambiguous definition of the true and orthodox faith.

23. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Many years to the emperor!Let the definition be confirmed or we shall leave. Many years to theemperors!’

24. Cecropius the most devout bishop of Sebastopolis said: ‘Wepropose that the definition be read out and that those who dissent and willnot sign it should leave. For we are agreed with what had been well defined,and raise no objections.’

25. The most devout bishops of Illyricum said: ‘Let those who dissent make themselves known. The dissenters are Nestorians. Let the dissentersgo off to Rome.’

26. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Dioscorus said, “Iaccept ‘from two natures’, but I do not accept ‘two’.” But the most holyArchbishop Leo says that there are two natures in Christ, united withoutconfusion, change or separation in the one only-begotten Son our Saviour.So whom do you follow – the most holy Leo, or Dioscorus?’

27. The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘We believe as Leo does.Those who object are Eutychianists. Leo’s teaching was orthodox.’

28. The most magnificent and glorious officials said: ‘Then add to thedefinition in accordance with the decree of our most holy father Leo thatthere are two natures united without change, division or confusion in Christ.’

29. At the request of all, the most glorious officials went into the oratoryof the most holy martyr Euphemia together with Anatolius etc.

This came up in conversation with an Antiochian friend. If the churches positions are basically the same, and the OOs accept the idea or philosophy behind Chalcedon but object to the wording, why do the OO churches not just accept the council? I did not know how to reply.

Studying about Chalcedon can be difficult, to put it nicely. Without going into detail, there was a lot of behavior exhibited in relation to that council that was unChristian, and the council resulted in the split between the Chalcedonians and the OO's that exists to this day. I know of people who completely lost their faith after studying about Chalcedon.

When asked the question posed by your Antiochian friend, I usually respond:

1. Why should we accept another council when the three we have already completely express the Orthodox Faith? We believe in using as little language as possible to describe God, since He is a great mystery. In our Faith, more is not necessarily better. We do not like to over-define God. Using the least language possible to describe God is best.

^This is something I heard from an Armenian deacon. I know the "least language is better" sentiment expresses the feelings of the Armenian tradition. I suspect the other OO Churches are similar in that regard.

2. We can say we believe the same thing as the EO's because of another council they held one hundred years after Chalcedon (their 5th council.) During their 5th council, the Chalcedonians made it clear that Chalcedon was not to be used to support a heresy called Nestorianism. Prior to their 5th council, it was not quite so clear, and people who held a Nestorian Christology were using Chalcedon to support their point of view. (This was despite the participants at Chalcedon condemning Nestorius.)

So we believe as the EO's do, but it is not because of Chalcedon itself. It's because of things done after Chalcedon, including the EO's 5th council.

3. Chalcedon itself is still problematic to the OO's, partly because it incorporates the Tome of Leo (a letter written by Leo I of Rome.) The Tome, in addition to using the "in two natures" language and other expressions favored at the time by Nestorians, also condemned the "one nature" language which was used by St. Cyril and which the OO's have always upheld as Orthodox.

Again, it can be said that in light of the Chalcedonian's 5th council, the Tome of Leo can only be read in an Orthodox way, but the OO's will not accept a document that we consider to be so problematic on its face.

4. Lastly, we have to consider some very bad history surrounding Chalcedon, and following Chalcedon. I don't want to go into too much detail, as that is more appropriate for the private forum, but for centuries after Chalcedon the OO's did suffer persecution for their rejection of that council. For the Armenians this would include mass deportations during the time of the emperor maurice (early seventh century.)

It's hard to embrace a council that was used to persecute your people. That may be a psychological, rather than a theological, reason. However, it is important and may be one of the biggest obstacles to our ever accepting Chalcedon.

It matters enough that our priest here in Albuqerque has said that we will under no circumstance commune EOs (there is no conceivable circumstance in which this might arise, as they have their own OO churches here, but I guess he felt it needed to be said), and that we are not to commune with them. Before I was even able to commune with the Copts when I was still not yet baptized, I mentioned to the priest over the Agape meal that I might like to visit the local OCA back home when visiting family over Christmas vacation and was told in quite blunt terms by some of the laity "Don't commune with them; that's not something we do", so apparently the laity feel it very important, too. In my catechesis, which was very informal, the priest sat me down and explained to me the Coptic view of the council and why the Tome, in his words, was "full of heresies" (e.g., certain language in it seems to go against St. Cyril's anathemas), and that we will never believe in it.

So I can't pretend to know the controversy backwards and forwards, but I definitely received the message that it is quite important, or at least that we did not separate for any of the rather shallow reasons that have been popularly advanced by some non-OO (e.g., budding ethnic nationalism, pure stubborn rejection of imperial authority, etc.), but due to substantial and real concerns over what we were being asked to accept in the council and as a result of the council.

I'm with everybody else that this is probably the kind of thing you can go crazy studying. I am glad to study the minimum of Christological controversy (read: NOT Christology, which at least can be approached on its own, and is quite beneficial), as I find it has basically nothing to do with my everyday life and worship.

Congratulations on being received into the Orthodox faith, by the way.

I just need to mention that the Armenian Church is more liberal than the Copts on the issue of communing EO's. Our priests do commune them in recognition of the fact that we do believe we have the same faith.

we did not separate for any of the rather shallow reasons that have been popularly advanced by some non-OO (e.g., budding ethnic nationalism, pure stubborn rejection of imperial authority, etc.),

I'm glad you brought this up. Anastasia will probably come across this assertion sooner or later. It absolutely is ridiculous when used against the Armenians. We rejected Chalcedon in the early 500's (we didn't hear about it until then.) At that time in history, the Byzantine Emperor Zeno had enacted the Henoticon, which was a decree downplaying the importance of Chalcedon. The Armenians, if anything, were going along with imperial policy when they rejected Chalcedon. There was nothing rebellious about such a rejection at that time.

It's too late to edit it, but I did just notice that I wrote "they (Chalcedonians) have their own OO churches here", when obviously I meant that they have their own EO churches here (Greek and OCA, if I recall correctly).

How much does our differing view of the Council of Chalcedon and the miaphysite vs. dophysite nature of Christ matter?

This was written by a favorite priest of mine who blessed me last Epiphany, it should clear up a lot of the Oriental perspective because as much as we all wish it didn't matter, it really and fundamentally does. However studying Christology is not an obstacle, it is a powerfully moving opportunity to explore Jesus Christ and our relationship with who He is.

a while back, i asked my confession father (a hegumen, which is a senior priest), if i could take communion when i visited a country with no OO churches. he said yes, and he was coptic.i also know at least one OO priest who will give communion to EO laity (not to clergy as we are supposed to wait to our patriarchs to agree before that).

How much does our differing view of the Council of Chalcedon and the miaphysite vs. dophysite nature of Christ matter?

This was written by a favorite priest of mine who blessed me last Epiphany, it should clear up a lot of the Oriental perspective because as much as we all wish it didn't matter, it really and fundamentally does. However studying Christology is not an obstacle, it is a powerfully moving opportunity to explore Jesus Christ and our relationship with who He is.

Indeed! The Father let me photo copy of the meatier portions , but I wish I had it in its entirety its one of the most crucial books on my shelf. While it is specifically Ethiopian and uses Ge'ez and Amharic theological language and terms, it is also comparative, exploring the Syrian and Coptic Fathers insights as well as a thorough explanation of what exactly Oriental Fathers imply by Miaphysis, because in truth the EO also accept this term, but clearly we all mean different things by the same word. Kesis Mebaratu is a great man with a delightful sense of humor aside from being a Christological genius

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I know a priest who is fine with communing lay Oriental Orthodox, so long as they aren't theologians or especially well-versed, as, essentially, most Orthodox on either side (in this case, the Oriental side) do not understand the christology well enough to make them unorthodox. From an EO perspective, they possess the Orthodox faith because they don't know enough to not be Orthodox. But it is a case-by-case pastoral judgement, of course.

I saw my parish's former priest give Communion to an Armenian lady. (I say former because he just retired- he didn't get removed or anything.) The lady was the last person in the Communion line. One of the ushers was helping her walk because she was elderly. The usher said to the priest, "And this lady is from the Armenian Church..." The priest quickly said, "Let her come, let her come," and gave her Communion.

I'm not chrismated so I just sat and watched like I do each week. This really made me smile, though.

If the churches positions are basically the same, and the OOs accept the idea or philosophy behind Chalcedon but object to the wording, why do the OO churches not just accept the council?

If the churches positions are basically the same, and the EO accept the idea or philosophy behind St. Cyril's one incarnate nature of God the Word, but object to the wording, why don't the EO just deny Chalcedon.

See, this works both ways.

Besides, I doubt whether the OO accept the 'idea' of Chalcedon. Chalcedon had the chance to accept a more conciliatory 'from to natures' but they went with the more controversial 'in two natures' because they were forced by the emperor and because they didn't really like Pope Dioscorus.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Congratulations on being received into the Orthodox faith, by the way.

This was to me, right? If so, thanks.

Ok, so Chalcedon seems to take on more importance as people get into it, and the context seems to have shaped the impact it has within each group-EO and OO, both individually as members and organizationally in our inability to easily unite.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2012, 02:10:51 AM by Anastasia1 »

Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)

Congratulations on being received into the Orthodox faith, by the way.

This was to me, right? If so, thanks.

Ok, so Chalcedon seems to take on more importance as people get into it, and the context seems to have shaped the impact it has within each group-EO and OO, both individually as members and organizationally in our inability to easily unite.

How much does our differing view of the Council of Chalcedon and the miaphysite vs. dophysite nature of Christ matter?

..it seems from my experience that even very casual Oriental Orthodox seem to be fairly aware about their Christology. The discrepancies and discussions between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox about Chalcedon I'd suggest reflect these underlying Christological inclinations more than Chalcedon itself defines them. Chalcedon is a springboard. I still personally don't feel that our differences are such that we should be separated into polemic camps of disunion, however I do believe the distinctions are more rightfully substantive than semantic or symbolic.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10